Comments on: The first cut is the deepest

By: greg

greg — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:06:34 +0000

Thanks for the corrected figures.

It’s not impossible for the EU/US farm lobbies to argue for exemptions at home, and yet at the same time use climate change concerns to put up barriers. They could do this by comparing total emissions reductions as opposed to a sectoral comparison. Probably not an equitable line of argument, however as a small country, and given weak international law, we have to consider these risks.

Note, there are risks even if they are not written into the current negotiating text. Why would you expect them to be – the real world isn’t that simple.

I haven’t seen a clear strategy from the government, yet I see other countries making changes, both in their private companies and governments. I think it is entirely possible that NZ will be out-paced by other developed countries, exposing us to tariff risks.

“Malarkey-Taxman bill” – no comment needed.

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:56:24 +0000

CTG: “R2, have you read any of the articles on Copenhagen?”

Lol, yes I have read the articles. The difference is I have also read the texts.

Read article 3.5 of convention here:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

And 130.b, 132, preamble x.1 to 134, 134 alternative 3 a, and 134.1 of the revised negot text here:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/inf01.pdf

The is a strong message in this section that for certain sectors, including agriculture, mitigation should be cooperative, and not include trade protections.

And Greg: I have read the tariff parts of the Malarkey-Taxman bill, I suggest you do the same, Sec 765-767.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454rh.txt.pdf

Not before 2025. The purpose statement of the section states that Tariffs be to equalise costs of compliance, the bill does not include agriculture so need to worry.

And anyway, the bill requires countries that are smaller than 0.5% of world emissions to be left out.

The target is 17% reduction for covered entities of 2005 emissions. Ag is not in, so there is no absolute target in the bill. Obama’s envoy has announced a target, but it is not the same as the W-M target.

CTG: What signals do you have the EU is about to put taxes on agriculture? The common agricultural policy is increasing subsidies, not implementing emissions charges. Like greg says, the EU and US have powerful farm lobbies. They got a great deal in W-M. What makes you think they will bring in agricultural taxes anytime soon? If they did why not wait and follow rather than lead?

I seriously suggest you both read section III.D in the negot text. That is where Copenhagen is at at the moment anyway. Anticipating some change is not based in the real world at the moment.

So I ask you both again;

What real world evidence do you have that tariffs will be placed on NZ agriculture if NZ does not adopt an aggressive target (10+% of 1990)? (and dont refer to all the news articles)

By: greg

greg — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:26:07 +0000

Replying to R2 at #34
“CTG, what real world evidence do you have that tariffs will be placed on NZ agriculture if NZ does not adopt an aggressive target (10+% of 1990)?”

The ACES bill recently passed in the US congress, has a 17% 2020 target, and requires by law, border adjustment taxes starting in 2020, for imports from countries that don’t play ball.

The US and Europe both have powerful farming lobby. It would be risky for NZ to give these groups a justification for their protectionist interests.

By: CTG

CTG — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:18:07 +0000

R2, have you read any of the articles on Copenhagen? The world is moving towards real tariffs on carbon very soon. The only way that emissions cuts are going to happen is by applying some sort of tariff on carbon. My point is, if we do not put a sufficiently high tariff on the carbon we produce ourselves, then the rest of the world will be more than happy to do it for us.
Say, for example, that the agriculture sector gets a free ride until 2015 or whatever they want. If the EU starts imposing carbon taxes on agriculture in the next year or two, then NZ agriculture would obviously be at an advantage, so you can expect the EU to put a tariff onto NZ imports in order to compensate.
Pretending that the rest of the world will ignore us because we only produce a tiny amount of the world’s emissions is pure head-in-the-sand stuff.

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:12:58 +0000

CTG, what real world evidence do you have that tariffs will be placed on NZ agriculture if NZ does not adopt an aggressive target (10+% of 1990)?

By: CTG

CTG — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:30:51 +0000

You got number 2 wrong. It should read:
We cut 5% BAU, ROW cut 40% = Low emissions, NZ economy collapses after ROW imposes punitive tariffs on our agriculture.
As Gareth says, you can’t just ignore the fact that the ROW is going to cut emissions, and the way this will happen is by putting a price on carbon. If we do not internalize that cost in NZ (through ETS or whatever), then the ROW will make sure that we pay the cost externally.

By: samv

samv — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 05:29:54 +0000

Sigh… did have tickets booked etc, but fell sick and couldn’t make it. Good luck putting across the potential to the minister and farming community tonight Bryan …

By: Gareth

Gareth — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:38:41 +0000

My post discussed how 2050 targets set the context for 2020…

Your game theory matrix ignores the cost of inaction. You assume we will be “forgiven” not doing enough. I would suggest this is optimistic nonsense. The world does not owe NZ a living, and our competitors in export markets will not be slow to exploit any perceived failings. Note the speed with which the UK diary industry tried to use a food miles argument against NZ butter.

Doing as little as possible only makes sense in a very narrow context. The world ain’t narrow.

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:49:44 +0000

R2 Your reasoning displays no sense of the seriousness of the threat of climate change. We have obligations in the battle against global warming which we should be looking to shoulder, not avoid. Your 0.2% argument is specious when set against the morality involved.

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:03:53 +0000

The conversation was about 2020 targets.

I am arguing it is a false choice you present. “If we do too much … we will have saved ourselves and future generations”

I don’t think anything New Zealand can do with our paltry 0.2% of emissions will have an effect on GHG levels by ourselves. I also do not think we can have an effect indirectly by influencing others. And I think given our national circumstances we will be forgiven for not cutting 40% (high renewables, exporting nation).

So it becomes a Nash’s game theory decision.

1.We cut 40%, ROW cut 40% = Low Emissions, NZ Wealth cost
2.We cut 5% BAU, ROW cut 40% = Low Emissions, Low NZ wealth cost
3.We cut 40%, ROW cuts 5% below BAU = High Emissions, NZ Wealth cost
4. We cut 5% BAU, ROW cuts 5% BAU, High emissions, Low NZ wealth cost.

The result is: regardless of what the rest of the world does, NZ is better off setting a soft target.